c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more, included sparklight. >> we are doing our part so it is a little easier to do yours. >>parklight support c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers , giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> now to debate for connecticut' fifth connecticut district, incumbent jaha hayes faced her challenger, george logan. the nonpartisan cook political report with amy walter rated the race a tossup.

>> for connecticut public, i am frankie graziano. connecticut public in collaboration with the league of women voters of connecticut has held a series of political debates designed to educate local governors on candidates running for office in connecticut. tonight we are paying special attention to 40 towns in western and central connecticut. we are broadcasting live from the campus of central connecticut state university. before i introduce the candidates, let me go over the structure. the cumulative time format is designed to allow the candidates time to discuss the issues. the only rule is the total time used by each candidate should be approximately the same. candidates will not be restricted to one or two minute responses.

they may spend as little or as much time as they feel is appropriate. our goal is to encourage debate. the candidates will take turns being first to respond. following the question period, each candidate will make a two minute closing statement. members of the league of women voters are serving as timers and will keep the candidates and me informed of the time expended. if there is a discrepancy in time, i will call it to their attention and see that it is corrected. applause is limited to the start and end of tonight's program. now to introduce the candidates. jahana hayes, a democrat. [applause] and george logan, a republican. [applause]

the recipient of the first question was decided by a coin toss backstage, and it goes to misses hayes. thank you guys for that handshake. good camaraderie. i will start now and afterwards mr. logan will get the second question. the u.s. supreme court recently overruled roe v. wade, leaving many to turn to federal lawmakers regarding access to safe and legal abortion. if there was a federal vote to codify a person's right to choose, would you vote yes or no? rep. hayes: absolutely yes. i have already taken that boat in the 116th and 170th congress. i am a cosponsor of the legislation. i have been vocally supportive of women's reproductive health and rights, access to contraception, the idea that the decision is between a woman and

her doctor, full stop. there is no room for government intervention, no room for me. all the nuances that accompany this conversation are distractions. my new job in congress is to make federal law. from the federal government standpoint, there is no place in women's reproductive choice. mr. george: i would like to thank central connecticut state university, the league of women voters, and npr for this wonderful event. i support a woman's right to choose. i support connecticut state law codifying a woman's right to choose. as a member of congress, i will do just that, just like i have when i was in the state senate. the overturning of roe v. wade does not change anything in connecticut because we have codified a woman's right to choose.

we have our three branches of government. the u.s. supreme court decided the decision regarding a woman's right to choose should be left up to the states. i will comply with the u.s. supreme court's decision and i would not vote in favor of codifying roe v. wade at the federal level. i think the decision has been made by the u.s. supreme court. i will do everything in my power to make sure a woman's right to choose is in no way infringed on what we have in connecticut state law. frankie: would you like a chance to reply? rep. hayes: i don't think mr. logan understands what choice means. it doesn't mean the federal or state government can decide, it means the individual can decide. the idea he would not vote to support codifying roe v. wade

means he thinks individual states should make the decision for the woman. that is not choice. choice means that the person decides for them self and consolation with their medical professionals, their doctors, their families what decision they are going to make for themselves, not the state. mr. george: washington versus connecticut. my focus is on the fifth congressional district. i support a woman's right to choose as codified in connecticut state law and i will defend that in washington. frankie: mr. logan, next question -- rep. hayes: this is not a washington versus connecticut and this will be the last thing i say about this. i support a woman's right to choose full stop. i have voted for it, i will continue to vote for it. it doesn't mean state legislators can decide. it means individuals can decide for themselves all the time

regardless of the geography what decisions they want to make over their own personal reproduction. it has nothing to do with washington versus connecticut. frankie: one more chance to reply. mr. george: there are many contrasts between my opponent and i and that is what this debate is about. we both agree on the importance of a woman's right to choose. the main difference is my opponent believes in abortion with no restrictions. my opponent does not believe in parental notification if a 14, 15, or 16-year-old child is seeking an abortion. we have differences. in terms of supporting a woman's right to choose, supporting connecticut state law, codifying a woman's right to choose, i will do everything in my power to make sure nothing occurs at the federal level that infringes upon connecticut state law

codifying a woman's right to choose. frankie: mr. logan, the governing body of high school sports in connecticut allows kids to be dissipate in sports by the gender with which they identify, he, she, or they. the federal government once threatened state education funding over trans or dissipation in local high school sports. do you support the rights of the trans female athletes in that lawsuit, and at large the rights of members of the lgbtqia plus community? mr. george: i certainly support the rights of the lgbt community and transgender community as well. i also support the rights of girls and women, particularly in k-12. i do not believe that males should compete against females in sports, particularly in

grades k-12. throughout the fifth congressional district, i talked to parents all over the district. we have girls, high school, competing for scholarships, competing with other girls, and to allow biological males to compete with girls, particularly in k-12, i think is unfair for the girls that are competing. looking towards college, looking towards scholarships, i don't think that is fair. rep. hayes: just want to say i told you on the last question i wasn't going to say anything else, but i have to respond to mr. logan's last statement. they keep going unchecked saying his opponent supports late tour abortion and for parental notification.

i support codifying the language of roe, which says up to viability, and beyond in consultation with a medical professional -- that means exactly what i said. the decision is between a woman and her doctor. at the point where a 15, 16, 17-year-old finds themselves in that position, something at home is likely already disrupted and they need to be able to seek help. i was pregnant at 17. this idea you have to get someone at home to allow you to get help presupposes you come from a two parent supportive household. that is not the case for everyone. to your question about transgender athletes, it's interesting because on every other issue, mr. logan says the state should decide. connecticut has decided transgender athletes can play high school sports. as a congressperson, i am not only the congressperson for cisgender athletes, for people

who identify as gay, lgbtq. i am also the congressperson for trans students. i struggled on this one because i spoke out when the previous secretary of education said she was going to withhold federal funds. there is a lot about the biological journey that i don't understand when it comes to trans athletes or trans students, but i understand discrimination. at the federal level you cannot discriminate based on sexual identity. if you as an elected official can't understand that in this role your job is to be the voice for all of your constituents, even the ones you don't understand, don't agree with. and my constituency includes people who identify as lgbtq, trans, clear, whatever. i am there congressperson to and their parents are looking for

someone to have a voice for them. when we talk about withholding federal funds to a state or district based on gender identity, it is illegal. mr. george: i am not in favor of transferring one form of discrimination for another. i want to be a voice of the people of the fifth congressional district. i announced my campaign in july last year, having gone throughout the district, and i have heard repeatedly this issue. transgender athletes, males, i absolutely want them to compete. there is a mechanism for that. they can compete with the other male athletes. to have male athletes competing against female athletes is not fair to the girls and young women that are competing in high school or k-12 sports, and who

are competing and trying to win scholarships. this debate is about contrast. my opponent has her opinion and i have mine. i am letting you all know how i feel on the subject. frankie: a last word if you would like it? rep. hayes: this debate is absolutely about contrast. for all the people who have trouble identifying the contrast in this statement, replace trans with any other thing. polish athletes, black athletes, disabled athletes -- replace it with any other term and it would not be acceptable, because that is discrimination. discrimination against any group is unacceptable. frankie: mrs. hayes, you recently remapped it -- recommended screening for anxiety for children ages eight to 18.

what would you do as a member of congress to respond to the growing mental health crisis in children? rep. hayes: what have i done? i can tell you that. we voted on the mental health matters act, which included my legislation supporting trauma informed instructional practices. at the beginning of the pandemic when we were advocating for funds, i introduced legislation to save education jobs. whenever school districts face a crisis or financial shortage, the first people to go are the counselors, therapists, nurses, wraparound and support services. i have fought for legislation and funding to make sure we have available trauma informed resources at the school level. coming out of this pandemic, we have no idea what the next few years will hold, so we have to be prepared and make sure the services and resources are available for children.

expanding telehealth, making sure medicare reimburses these things so we can meet people where they are and address the anxiety and mental health crisis that is impending. but not just talking about it. i thought for funding. connecticut got a billion dollars in education funding separate from the american rescue fund, money allocated for school resources for mental health services. that has to be part of any conversation we are having and i have already fought for those funds and brought them back to the state and will continue to do so as these funds run out to make sure we are making investments on the front end and things like this. mr. george: with one-party party democrat control in washington, they have come up with an alphabet soup of programs to fix things, but it hasn't worked.

my opponent has been in congress for just about four years. this still persists. part of the issue is the funding is not getting down to the level of helping the people who need it. i hear throughout the district, mental health is an issue. we need to prioritize it, focus on it, and we actually need to deliver. democrat leadership in washington has not delivered when it comes to mental health for our young people or for adults. my opponent has been there for four years, talks about how they are going to help, but they haven't. we have heard nothing but false promises from the democratic leadership, particularly since the biden harris administration came into power. my opponent supports the initiatives 100%.

we are going to hear over and over again on how they have the answers to our problems. but everything the biden-harris administration has touched has gone sideways, has been worse. just about everyone in the fifth congressional district is worse off than they were when my opponent first took office, worse off than we were when president biden and vice president harris took office. we need a change. one party rule is not working for the people of the fifth congressional district. i am going to go to washington, bring checks and balances. i am going to work hard with democrats and republicans to solve our common problems. we can do this. but one party control is not getting it done. we need true discussion, true negotiation.

talk through the ideas and get the support of the american people. get the support in congress to pass meaningful and effective laws. rep. hayes: four years. you know what else happened for four years? mr. logan was in the state senate. you don't hear him talking about what he did in the state senate because he did nothing. we have a system of federalism where the federal government, the branch of government i am a part of, sends money to the state level. state legislators decide how that money will be used. we departed from that in the american rescue plan because we thought for local municipalities to decide. in four years he did nothing on this issue. he says i have been in congress and did nothing. mr. logan was in the state senate as an elected official,

could have addressed these issues the exact same way. he is presenting himself to the people of the district as someone who has aspirational ideas, but to the people in his own district who knew him and did not feel he was doing a good job and voted him out, now he is presenting himself with all these new ideas. you know what i have done, you can check the record. i would encourage you to use that same information to look at where he stood on all these things we are talking about, look at where he stood on education funding, on all of these issues that he now claims he is going to go to congress to fix. the way you know what i am going to do as your member of congress is not by the words that come out of my mouth. it is by the way i voted. i have talked and communicated with you and i'm running a

campaign telling people what i have done. it is curious that mr. logan is not mentioning anything about what he has done in the state senate. if he had a record he could be proud of, he would be standing up here much like i am and saying, this is what i have voted for, this is what i intend to do. if he had voted on these issues in a way he was proud of, a way that affected change and brought about meaningful progress, he would be here shouting it from the rooftops. he is not because he has not done anything. frankie: last chance at a reply for this topic. mr. george: thank you. first, my opponent fails to acknowledge the obvious, that we have one party control here in connecticut. democrat, one party control in washington as well. she has the majority in the

house. democrats have the majority in the senate. they have the white house. in terms of my time in the state senate, i know my opponent listens to the talking points of the democrat state party and the d triple c, but i am very proud of my time in the connecticut state senate. i won a democrat district 22 consecutive years, 12 elections under democrat my estate senate seat. i won that seat, went to harvard. for my first term we had a tie in the senate. he passed some of the most consequential legislation in the modern recent -- the last 50 years for the state of connecticut. he passed -- because we had a tie in the senate, and democrats were forced to negotiate with us to pass the budget. we passed the cap to limit the

amount of borrowing the state can do. he had run away borrowing before that. he passed a spending cap so legislators could not just blow the budget. put restrictions on there to try to paint some fiscal stability here. we also included a volatility cap. that volatility cap allowed us to pay down debt, so if we have a one-time influx of revenue that the legislators not go willy-nilly and start creating new programs and spending the money. we had to pay down some of the debt, pension debt, that we had. right now the state is sitting on a multi-bill -- multibillion dollars surplus because of my time in the state senate. because we had a tie in the senate. when it comes to education, when it comes to mental health, particularly here in connecticut, one party has not

gotten us anywhere. so now i am hopeful to go to washington, to represent everyone in the fifth congressional district. republicans, democrats. look, i received the endorsement of the independent party of connecticut. have over 40% of our voters unaffiliated with any party. i'm going to work across the aisle in washington. hopefully will be able to slip the house of representatives. i want to bring better checks and balances. i will use my negotiating skills and willingness to work across the aisle will be able to bring change far beyond what my opponent has been able to do with one party control in washington. moderator: mr. logan, what is your position on domestic programs? rep. hayes: i would like to respond. moderator: i will give you an opportunity. rep. hayes: when mr. logan left

the states and at state was in a $3 billion deficit. we brought american rescue plan funds to the state to stabilize communities during a pandemic and recover afterwards. the state now has a $5 billion surplus as a result of those funds. the legislation he said he would have voted against is also the legislation he is touting as part of his record to say that democrats have gone -- have done nothing under one-party rule, if you consider the most significant investment in infrastructure nothing for our roads, our bridges, our highways, our broad bands, our water, if you consider gun legislation, the first time in 30 years this has been passed nothing, negotiating the cost of prescription drugs, paying down the debt that ballooned into $7 trillion under the previous administration, if you consider the most significant legislation passed since the great society

nothing, i think that is all people need to know. if you consider a $3 billion investment in climate mitigation strategies nothing, if you consider capping insulin at $35 and requiring the largest corporations that have gotten $1 billion in profits over the past year during a pandemic, taking them pay 15% income tax for the first time -- 15% corporate tax rate for the first time -- if you consider that nothing, then i do not understand what this role is about for you. moderator: mr. logan, you get another chance to reply. mr. logan: thank you. let's start with the infrastructure bill in washington, for our roads and bridges. this is what i'm talking about in terms of the excessive spending supported by my opponent. $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. less than 25% of that $1.2

trillion actually went to infrastructure. approximately 10% of this infrastructure bill actually went to roads and bridges. this is what i am talking about. the democrat leadership in washington, they have excessive spending packages, and i'm telling you throughout the district what i'm hearing from folks -- all i am hearing is that things are unaffordable. last weekend i met a couple and they said to me that, you know, they voted for barack obama, president barack obama, twice. they have had it with the democratic leadership, the current democrat leadership in washington. their retirement plan, they lost $100,000 for stocks that they had in the stock market. this is what we are talking about.

these excessive spending packages, wasteful spending is affecting everyone in the district. and my opponent is just going to continue to blindly support those excessive spending packages. moderator: i want to interrupt you guys, because we were talking about children and we are getting too far into spending. i was hearing about domestic programs, so now i can ask about that. what is your stance on domestic programs such as medicare and social security? if you win this election will you try to augment or support cuts for the programs? mr. logan: as strong as possible, but i'm convinced the best we can do that is to have a strong economy. we must have a strong, vibrant economy, and right now we don't have that. here in connecticut our economy is shrinking. last week at trunk by 5%. personal income growth in connecticut, the lowest in the nation.

we need to change. i support programs to help folks that need a helping hand. social security, medicaid. right now under democratic control health care costs are unaffordable. our social security program is hurting. we need to strengthen our economy. we do that, it will fix a lot of things. these excessive spending packages are not doing the trick, and the democratic leadership is going to do more of the same. it is going to result in higher taxes, more inflation, and the families, our seniors, and our veterans in the fifth congressional district going to suffer under the current democrat worship. rep. hayes: there is a reason he didn't answer that question. because he does not want to say that republican leadership is committed to ending social security. they want to sunset it. that means they want to end it as a mandatory program. they want seniors too -- they

want congress to have to vote every year on whether or not social security is funded. social security is not excessive spending. it is insurance that people have paid into. i am on legislation to not only solidify and stabilize social security, but expand benefits. seniors recently saw the first increase in social security they have seen in 40 years. they have not been getting cost-of-living, their medicare premiums have been going up. social security benefits went up. republicans have a plan on the table to raise the age and make it so that people cannot collect after the age of 90. it is not just social security. they wanted better of her and -- they wanted veterans benefits as entitlements. these are not entitlements. my job is to legislate for people. if we cannot agree that seniors who have paid into this program should be able to pull from it as part of their retirement that people have planned where they are going to live and how they are going to live in retirement

based on their social security, i'm going to protect social security. kevin mccarthy just this week is already kind of sounding the alarm that he is going to hold the debt ceiling hostage order to negotiate a vote, or force a vote on social security. so, while i represent the fifth congressional district and my concerns are local, my job is to weigh in for the people of this district on national concerns. so, you cannot ignore what is happening nationally. social security is in jeopardy. have already indicated that the program will end. we are trying to lower the cost of prescription drugs, trying to make things more affordable for our seniors. the only indicator of our communities cannot be just the stock market. i know a whole lot of people in this district that do not own stocks. i know a whole lot of people

that do not make decisions based on stocks, just trying to get by. most seniors fall into that category. to your question, not only will i work to protect social security, i will work to strengthen and expand it. moderator: would you like to respond, mr. logan? mr. logan: absolutely. you know, there they go again, a democrat putting me in that box. i just indicated i will do everything i can to shore up social security. we just have a difference of opinion on how to go about doing that. i am not going to washington to satisfy any party leadership. i want to represent the people of the fifth congressional district. i am not interested in sunsetting social security. again, i will be in the house of representatives, should i earn your vote. i will fight hard to maintain social security. from the inside. there is nothing wrong with having a republican on the inside, fighting for the people

of the fifth congressional district. i will do that, regardless of whether i'm on the house floor or in the house chamber, if i am in a committee with democrats, or republicans, just as i did in the state senate. when it comes to prescription drugs, of course prescription drugs are too high. too high under the democrat leadership in washington. talk about a recent bill during the election season that passed that supposedly is going to lower prescription drug costs. why didn't they do it before? i'm skeptical that it will actually work. we need real solutions in washington. we need to stop leaving the democratic leadership and their false promises. they have gotten us in a worse condition than we were before the biden/harris administration came into power. and before my opponent came into power. we can change this. we can go in a different direction, but we are just going to get more of the same.

higher inflation, higher taxes, less services, parents frustrated with what their kids are being taught in school, higher gas prices. it does not have to be that way. we can make the change. i asked for your vote so i can go down to washington, bring some sensibility, work across the aisle, and move our country in a different direction. moderator: you get the last response on this topic. rep. hayes: why didn't we do something about prescription drugs before? because every republican voted against it. this idea that one person is going to move the needle or change the way things happen, that is not what happens. in the legislative branch there are members of congress. you have to get a majority. one person in am -- in a republican majority that does not believe we should be lowering the cost of prescription drugs or there should be nuances in the way it should be done, we have tried at every turn. we tried in build back better. we try to negotiate for months

when this bill went to the floor. medicare will negotiate the cost of prescription drugs, but only for medicare. do you know why that is? because republicans voted against it. senate republicans said they did not want private insurers to do the same. so, all of those children with type one diabetes and all of those parents paying exorbitant amounts of money for prescriptions for insulin, we tried to get that past, and they blocked it. so, make no mistake about it. one person working from the inside is not going to change that. you need a majority of people who are aligned with the value and belief that we need to step in so that large drug companies are not taking advantage of people on medications that have

not changed in 100 years. on medications you can get in other come -- other countries for a quarter of the price, sometimes 1/10 of the price. this is an industry that has gone awry, and people at the mercy of prescription drug companies, because if your child is sick we were going to pay whatever you have to pay for them to get treatment and care. to that question, why didn't we do it? we have been trying. we have been trying to do it. you know how we can deliver on expanding the list of medications? it is to deliver a majority that believes that people deserve that. moderator: ms. hayes, americans in 2022 have felt the pain at the pump and the checkout counter. while inflation has extended in recent months, it is up significantly from two years ago. what do you think the federal government can do about the cost of good and services -- of goods

and services? rep. hayes: inflation is a serious issue. it is something i hear from constituents everywhere i go and everyone i talk to. we are coming out of a global pandemic. there is a war in ukraine affecting the prices at the pump. what can the federal government do? so, president has released some oil from the strategic oil reserves the ease pressure at the pump. we talk about home heating costs in congress we just voted -- literally i brought back to this district $20 million to help people with their energy bills. as far as food, increasing competition, i am the chairwoman of the subcommittee on nutrition and making sure that we have markets for local farmers to engage in communities. just really thinking of all of the things we can do. when we talk about inflation there is a couple of other things i want people to consider.

we had a child tax credit where every family who had children was getting $300 a month per child in advanced tax payments. republicans voted against that. families had that money in their pocket right now that would some of the pressure of inflation. you talk about home heating costs, i know i was a single mom, and the majority of people's bills are their rent, utilities. when mr. logan was in the state senate he abstained on every road -- of, except for one right before election -- energy regulation, on lowering rates, he abstained. not because he had to, but because he is employed by someone whose parent company was ever source, and they would have been impacted by these votes. when you talk about what people will do, i asked you to also say what people had done when they had the opportunity. he had the opportunity when people are seeing a rate hike to

weigh in on a vote like that, and he did not. i will continue not just to bring down the cost to fight -- to fight to bring down the cost at the pump and some of the high costs people are experiencing, but also to raise the minimum wage. to make sure people have affordable health care. he voted against the minimum wage. if you don't think people deserve to have money in their pocket to be able to pay their bills, then you cannot in the same token say the cost of everything is too high. moderator: mr. logan, would you like a chance to reply? mr. logan: my opponent has stated she believes that the democrat party has single-handedly saved the economy. i have spoken to folks in our district repeatedly. we are all in a worse position. economically.

gas prices are at an all-time high. the biden-harris administration, in the first week they killed the xl pipeline, they have been attacking the notion of achieving american energy independence. i want to go to washington to be a voice of reason, to try to move towards true energy, american energy independence. right now we are heading into the winter months. i have families petrified on how they are going to pay for fuel costs. the democratic leadership in washington has no answers to that. when you take a look at my opponent, talks about republicans blocking this and that, they have the majority in the house, they have the majority in the senate. the president and vice president are democrats. they are not doing their job for the american people. they continue with false promises. talk about prescription drugs, she talks about tilde back better.

what does lowering prescription costs have to -- whether it is build back better or an infrastructure bill, i want to focus on bills, bring them to congress, that are focused on the item at hand. and give it its due course in congress. health-care costs are unaffordable in the district. that is the fact under democrat control. fuel oil costs are unaffordable. in our district, under democratic control. groceries. for many, unaffordable. they do not have the answers. now, my time in the state senate -- you know, this is a citizen's government we have here in connecticut. we have folks from all different walks of life. first of all, the state senate does not set utility rates.

connecticut pure does. i abstain from certain bolts out of an abundance of caution, because that is what more legislators should do if they are involved in the industry. i work for a water -- i have worked for a water company since 1992. i am proud of the work i have done at the water company. i have actually dealt infrastructure, as opposed to my opponent, talking about doing it. water, natural resource. i have built infrastructure throughout the district. brookfield, litchfield comic-con, torrington, and more. the last 30 years at the water company. water conservation. huge. i have volunteered to join the

housatonic association board of directors. i worked my way up to vice president of that board, because natural resources are very important to me. our natural environment is important to me. we can keep hearing the excuses for my opponent as to why you, the voters, should give her another chance to disappoint you. i am ready to hit the ground running. i will work tireless for you, just as i have when i was in the state senate, just as i have since i first announced in july of last year i'm willing to work with everyone in congress. my opponent can't say the same. she does not work across the aisle, regardless of what she says. you cannot vote 100 percent in line with nancy pelosi and then tell me you work in a bipartisan fashion. i will do the work, given the opportunity. moderator: ms. hayes, you get the first rebuttal. rep. hayes: i'm going to need

some time. that was a lot to unpack here. a couple of things. there is a reason why mr. logan and national republicans have hung their hat on one statement. democrats single-handedly saved the economy. yes, i said that. they have created nine ads from one sentence taken out of context. if i have been here for four years and am so horribly bad, they would have had a lot of material, not one sentence taken out of context. let me explain what i meant. i was talking about the american rescue plan, at a time when one million people had died. at a time when businesses were shuttered, when hospitals were saying they needed help, when mayors in towns were reaching out to my office, congressman, we need help. for our first responders, for our police and firefighters. we need help to reopen our schools safely. we need the resources.

when libraries and entertainment venues were saying, we don't know what we are going to do. businesses were saying, we need small business loans, we need help. you tell me who you would have left behind in that situation, because for me the answer was no one. so, when people needed help, as their congresswoman i delivered legislation to help all of these communities. not just lip service, the resources to allow local communities to do that work. and we did that without a single republican vote. so, i don't know if the people in their districts were hurting, i don't know if the people in their districts were not dying. here in the fifth, people needed help, and at that moment, when i cast that vote, we stabilized the economy. so, if you want to take that half a sentence on the road and apply it in multiple different situations, i ask you, what would you have done?

because in that moment, when i took that vote, democrats save the economy. not a single republican voted on that. the other thing i'm going to say to you, what does build back better have to do with any of these things? it has everything to do with everything we are talking about. because that legislation was legislation that acknowledged the problems we experienced during the pandemic and said as a government we have to legislate evidently. we have to make sure that all of these gaps we saw in our communities, all of the places where schools did not have internet, where people did not have assets to care, we have to make sure that all of those things are taking care of. so, it has everything to do with it the last thing i will say is, you hear a lot about statistics of how often i voted with nancy pelosi. you need to know at the federal level nancy pelosi does not vote on every bill. as the speaker she votes on big packages. so, i did vote with nancy pelosi

on things like the american rescue plan, on things like the jobs act, on the gun legislation. i voted with nancy pelosi on those things. i'm hearing the same things you are all hearing, so i wanted to fact-check myself. i reached out to see what percentage of times that i vote with nancy pelosi on the 900 votes i took in the 117th congress. 14. 14% of the time i voted with nancy pelosi. so, you can check that. 2020 senate record, you can check that mr. logan, mr. work across the aisle, and hundred percent of the time, 100% of the votes he took were in line with senate republicans. if you really want to understand the information and digest it, just check the facts. moderator: last reply on this topic, mr. logan. mr. logan: it is laughable for my opponent to say she has only

voted in line with nancy pelosi 14% of the time. she has supported every program, every initiative that came out from the speaker. sure, it is a vote, but every single program she has voted and supportive. whether nancy pelosi was voting or not, it was her program. she is comparing apples to oranges here. she is comparing congress to the connecticut state senate. there is 36 state senators. we worked, when i was in the senate, on a much more bipartisan basis than we are in congress. it was not as polarized. 84% of all of the votes when i was in the state senate were bipartisan. 84%. where we had differences with my democrat colleagues, mainly the majority, had to do around fiscal matters. financial stability.

and once we had that tie in the senate, we were able to do some good things in terms of stabilizing connecticut's economy, in terms of experiencing the surplus that we have now. i will tell you this, my opponent earlier said, what can one congressperson do in washington? she sets a very low bar for the position. you know, we are already making history with this campaign. we have the attention of the democrat leadership. we have -- my campaign, we have the attention of the house republican leadership. because one person can make a difference. and i was in the state senate, one person, freshman, state senator, because i won that district, we had that tie in the senate and we were able to accomplish things when we had folks working on the financial stability issues, closer than

they ever had before. i want to go to washington. i have high hopes and expectations. i believe that i will do a much better job in my opponent. now, look, my opponent earlier describe something to the effect i was trying to [indiscernible] i want to make sure everyone is clear. i do not believe my opponent is a bad person. i just do not agree with her politics. i do not agree with her decisions in washington to back the biden-harris agenda. i do not agree with my opponent to back the policies, votes of nancy pelosi. i just don't believe it has worked. we need to go in a different direction. i believe this is an opportunity for us. i am so excited to do everything i can between now and november 8 to earn your vote, and i will work tirelessly for you during moderator: i'm sensing some

tension on this topic, so would you like one more rebuttal on each one? rep. hayes: no tension at all. i'm not comparing apples to oranges, i'm comparing votes to votes. these are the things i voted for, and in the connecticut state senate, that is the job of a senator to vote on these matters. when you talk about fiscal matters, scope matters is, congress makes the laws. we also appropriate funds. so, fiscal matters has something to do with everything we do. when mr. logan was in the connecticut state senate he voted against family medical leave. he voted against raising the minimum wage. he voted against funding connecticut state police hazard pay. those are fiscal matters, and he is right -- he is absolutely right, he has the attention of national republican leadership. more so than even the attention of the people in this district there is a reason why they are

putting millions of dollars into a campaign behind a candidate, and that reason is not because he will be an independent voice and weigh in on the people of the state of connecticut from the outset. they have put millions of dollars into this race. there is a reason for that. i am -- i have no -- i don't know mr. logan as a person, so i cannot comment on him personally. but what i do know is, since this campaign started there has been mudslinging, and tweets at me every day. if this is about the issues, then let's keep it about the issues. the people in the district know what i have done. i was on the receiving end of much of the eight and legislation that came out, that came from all levels of government my entire life. i have a different sense of responsibility to legislate for the people who will never have a

voice in these rooms, for the people always left out at these tables. i have a different sense of responsibility for that. yes, we have different ideas about how these things are going to get done, and my ideas are centered in the people and families, and my neighbors and my friends, and all of the people in this district who at some point in my life identified with. so, yes, we absolutely disagree on the way these things should be done. moderator: mr. logan, last word on this topic? 6 in terms of my record -- mr. logan: in terms of my record in the state senate, the vast majority of the bills i voted on were bipartisan. you mentioned paid family medical leave, said it -- and said i voted against paid family medical leave. i voted against the democrat's version. there was two versions, the democrat version, and the republican version.

the democratic version of paid family medical leave included a tax, a percentage of everyone's pay in the state of connecticut. the version i supported, people would opt into family medical leave if they thought it was important. i'm about offering choice. i am in favor of paid medical leave, i was just not in favor of the version presented by the democrats. again, when we look at washington, we look at the fifth congressional district. the people are hurting in the district. things are too expensive. and what about the opioid epidemic? time is winding down here. we need to talk about that. we need to secure our southern borders, we need to control the flow of fentanyl. my opponent has it -- my opponent hasn't said a word about it.

i want to focus on issues important to the people of the fifth district, and the opioid epidemic is high on the list. why hasn't my opponent done more to be a voice for us regarding the southern border? why did she bring the vice president of the united states hear and not ask her, what is the plan? to secure our southern borders? what is the plan to tackle inflation? moderator: i did not ask about the opioid epidemic. rep. hayes: is there no opioid epidemic in the third district? moderator: i want to remind the audience if they can to hold their applause or refrain from making any noises until after the debate. he did ask you about fentanyl and opioids, so i want to give you a chance to respond to that. rep. hayes: the idea i have been silent is completely false. we have invested money into drug treatment programs and into making sure that there are wraparound services that we

expand medicaid to pay for those services. we have $14 billion in the last appropriations package to harden our ports and borders. this idea that the only way to address the opioid crisis is to criminalize people and add more police officers is flawed, and we already know how that ins. like i said tuesday night, i have been around long enough to remember the 1994 crime bill, where communities were decimated, and the only response to crack was putting people in jail. people did not receive treatment, families did not receive care. there has to be a wraparound approach. the funding we just voted for include support services for law enforcement, but also for into health, for addiction. i brought many back to the district for community health programs. in all of those things i recognized. i don't know what mr. logan

means by i have been silent. just because i don't put out a press release every four hours on twitter does not mean i have been silent. i have been not only working to address this issue, but understanding the impact it has on families. my entire community, my families decimated by addiction. don't tell me i don't know or i am not responding or i don't care about head. i just recognize that we also have to look at this from a health care perspective. not just a criminal justice perspective. moderator: mr. logan, i want to ask you a different question. some of the folks here might have driven through water berry or the mixmaster ticket here tonight, and some people might take the train to go to manhattan. i want to know what your views are regarding the commute of people living in good district, and how you aim to support critical infrastructure. mr. logan: one, when it comes to infrastructure we need to make sure that we fund the

transportation infrastructure here in connecticut. i mentioned the infrastructure bill, only 10% of that went to roads and bridges. we need to prioritize and focus on it. now, i want to go back to the opioid epidemic, because that is a big one. moderator: can you stick to? mr. logan: i need to answer the question. moderator: can you stick to the -- we are talking about infrastructure. i am losing my mind here today. can you stick to infrastructure for now? mr. logan: i support transportation infrastructure. we need to do it in a real fashion. the democrat leadership in washington has failed us. past an infrastructure bill -- they passed an infrastructure bill. 10% of it went to roads and bridges. that is the problem with the current immigrant leadership in washington. we got taxed more than we fixed

roads and bridges. if you want to fix the infrastructure, fix the infrastructure. focus on it. i do not believe the democrat leadership in washington, they don't have the ability to bring up a clean bill and handle the topic at hand. they have the majority in the house and senate. they cannot get things done other than taxing hard-working families, making things more expensive, i want to go to washington. we need to focus our efforts. we need to stop wasteful spending in these bills. ensure that the funds are being used for their intended purpose. that is not happening right now, and that is partly why we are in the situation we are in now. moderator: transportation and infrastructure? rep. hayes: the way you address infrastructure is, you find infrastructure. every president talked about getting an infrastructure bill passed. under a democrat leadership we

were able to get that past. five billion dollars to connecticut to address infrastructure. infrastructure is more than just roads and bridges. this is not a 1950's or 19 sentry westward expansion infrastructure. this is modern-day infrastructure, which means we have to address our airports, our broadband. we talk about the economy and how people engage and exchange, you cannot do that without broadband. in the district in the northwest corner there are places that have zero access. there are places where schools could not get online during the pandemic. there are places where people could not services. that is infrastructure. and then the united states -- in the united states of america water is infrastructure. the fact that in flint, michigan, so many years after those children were poisoned by lead water pipes, that has not been addressed. in this district i have cities

with 100-year-old water and sewer pipes. if we cannot agree that as part of infrastructure and something that should be taken off of the plate of municipalities and at least supported by the federal government, if we cannot believe -- i mean, if we cannot agree that building charging stations and literally expanding our grid is a part of infrastructure, that is part of the problem. we have so many people trying to legislate in a 1950's way for the traditional nuclear family, where everyone walks to work and school and lives in this nuclear community. that is not our world and communities. it will bring jobs back, it will help businesses, it will help people get back and forth through the state, take trains, and expand the northeast corridor. all of that is infrastructure. there is a reason that 10% of the money went to roads and bridges. because roads and bridges are not exclusively infrastructure.

the people who live in this district and go over the mixmaster and have to commute and go to the northwest corner and are off-line for hours understand the critical need for infrastructure and why we have to have investment and support in all of those things. moderator: mr. logan, first rebuttal? mr. logan: yes, things like broadband are important, things like telehealth or important. but when we are talking about -- the question was about commute. that people in the district have to experience. i hear over and over again the conditions of our roads and bridges is a major issue. all i'm saying is, if you have an infrastructure bill, i would have negotiated more than 10% to go to roads and bridges. they are very important for the people commuting every day. give me 30%. make it half $1 trillion. but 10% is not adequate. but, again, it is about the decisions made by the democrat

leadership, supported by my opponent. we need to bring some sensibility in these bills. we need to make sure that they are actually accomplishing the intended result. right now that infrastructure bill, as far as helping the people in the fifth congressional district in a more significant way, could have been better. i want to go to washington. obviously that 10% mark is ok with my opponent. it is not enough. we need to make sure that we focus on our roads and bridges more than we are now. having a title of the bill called the infrastructure bill and saying, job done, no. it is not adequate. it was poorly written, poorly conceived. not enough funding. we need to do more. the people of this congressional district expect that we go to washington as congressmen and women, and we focus on the things they consider most important.

so i do not think 10% of roads and bridges is enough in that particular bill. moderator: i have one last question. you get your last reply. rep. hayes: he would have tried to get 30%, but if you could not get it you would have voted no? that is not how the bipartisan cooperation you are talking about works. but also this infrastructure bill, the $5 billion connecticut will get over the next five years, will bring so many good paying union jobs back to our communities. it will put people to work. it will expand access to the economy. it will speed up transportation, cap the amount of time it takes for people to travel on the train. this is what the people in this district have been asking for. when i was elected in 2018 one of the things that was president trump's top priority items was infrastructure. it was one of the things everybody said they were going to get done. so now it is no longer a priority because joe biden is the president?

the people in this district, the department of transportation, the governor, everyone was asking for relief on infrastructure, and i delivered that to this district. moderator: last question of the night. many of the people in this congressional district are still reeling from a shooting that happened 10 years ago this december, sandy hook school shooting. the bipartisan saver communities act was recently enacted to address con violence. still, it continues to happen, as we saw last weekend in bristol. state investigators said the victims of that shooting encountered more than 80 rounds of gunfire. would you support new federal gun legislation, like an assault weapons ban? rep. hayes: yes i went. i was in the classroom right after that shooting and kids were asking me, why is this happening? i did not have a reasonable answer. i introduced legislation to introduce the qualifies as a school shooting, and republicans

voted no. this idea of doing nothing --and i'm running out of time, that i absolutely would support that. it is something that the people in this district need. it is something we need to do to keep our communities safe and it is in no way an infringement on second amendment rights. it's possible gun owners know that there is responsibility that comes with that. universal background checks, all of those things should be a part of owning a firearm. mr. logan voted against safe storage in cars, and that is something that the people in this district should know about and use as a part of the consideration when deciding who to vote for on november 8. moderator: mr. logan, your reply? mr. logan: gun violence is a problem. we need to address the violence issue going on. and that includes supporting our law enforcement. our law enforcement, the ranks are depleted. we are down 400 state troopers.

i have spoken to police chiefs throughout the district, forces are depleted. and what do we have? my opponent voted in favor of the anti-police bill in washington. my opponent here in connecticut has accepted the endorsement of the connecticut working families party, who one of their top objectives is to defund the police. we need to -- we need to support our law enforcement, we need to give them the resources they need to do their jobs. we are asking them to do an impossible job, and it is important that we are steadfast. so, to accept the endorsement of the working families party -- she is going to be on the ballot under the working families party. look it up yourself. they have called repeatedly for defunding the police.

she has indicated she is happy of their endorsement, of an organization that they have such shared values. what is she talking about? i am the only one on this stage who is unwavering in my support of law enforcement, in my support of our communities. we can get this done. we have got to work together. look, we need to handle the situation of the illegal guns in our communities. we need to be tougher on criminals, particularly those repeat offenders. she talks about my record in the senate -- again, falling in line with the democrat leadership here in connecticut and in washington. i voted for ethan's law in terms of safe storage in the home. i voted for ghost towns. -- ghost guns. but when it comes to someone having their property in their

vehicle, on their property and someone breaks into their car, steals their property, and then the property owner gets a criminal record, that is what i had a problem with. we had some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. we need more resources, more police officers to enforce those laws. moderator: both candidates have paired a two-minute closing statement people -- closing payment. ms. hayes goes first. your closing statement, please? rep. hayes: thank you so much for having us here tonight and for hosting this debate. i am asking people to vote for me and sending back to congress because i have done the work. i have used my lived experiences and the things i know about this district to advocate and legislate for people in all of those positions. on november 8 you are going to find me on the ballot on two lines. one of those is the working families party line. it is a party that believes in

raising the minimum wage and health care, and childcare, and the values that families believe in. they understand my position on police. i guess i'm not just a typical working family parties candidate. i guess i don't fit in their box. what i will do is make sure that i am legislating for the needs of all the people in this district, just like i have done. fighting to expand the child tax credit. making sure that no person goes to bed hungry. no veteran, no senior goes to bed hungry. making sure that we expand that list of drugs that are negotiated, so we can lower the cost. making sure we once and for all codified the language of roe into the law so we are not left to the whims of an administration. making sure we protect social security and expanded. making sure the infrastructure dollars and education funding that came back to the state is used for the benefit of people.

aching sure that we are putting people over politics. i am going back to congress to be the legislator that i needed for myself as a young girl. to ask the questions that i hope someone was asking for me. and people know that i'm going to do that, because they know what i have already done. people know how i have delivered for this district. they know i have been a voice and stood up and fought for the most marginalized communities, for everyone. i am not leaving any of you behind when i go back to congress. moderator: mr. logan, your closing statement, please? mr. logan: thank you. i look forward to meeting as many of you voters out there now but -- between now and november 8. i ask that you see my record, look what i've done during this campaign. i want to continue to work hard and do everything i can to earn your vote on november 8. and i will work tirelessly for you. and i will focus on issues of affordability.

i will focus on issues of relief for the high gas and oil prices. i will focus on safe communities . that is what i'm hearing in the district. people are looking for communities to be safer. i will work towards making sure education dollars get down to the students that need it. work hard to do what i can to help improve the terrible scores we are seeing, particularly in our urban areas for reading comprehension. focus on reading, math, science. i am the son of immigrants. i parents immigrated to connecticut from guatemala, and they stressed to me the meaning of hard work and how to stretch a dollar. i plan on bringing that type of work ethic to washington. you know, when we take a look at what this country can be, it is

up to each and every one of us to make decisions in terms of who represents us in washington. and i would just argue that my opponent has had four years to buck the system down there, to be a voice for the people of the fifth congressional district, and she has chosen not to do that. i will go to washington. i will the system, in terms of not going there simply to represent the leaders in washington. i will represent the people of the fifth congressional district. thank you, host, for that. moderator: thank you, candidates. jahana hayes and mr. george logan. [applause] please hold your applause. thank you to the league of women

voters of connecticut for your collaboration in informing voters this election season. i've got one more thing to say. if you could hold your applause just for one moment, guys. thank you guys so much for doing this, and thank you to the league of women voters of connecticut for helping us in this debate. it is the final debate in our series, but do not change the channel. lucy is here. she is the host of "where we live" and she is going to talk to representatives of the candidates tonight. and then i will be joined by christine stewart and dan parr. we will provide analysis of tonight's bait. stay tuned to connecticut public. ♪ >> today on c-span, a discussion on monetary policy and global inflation a day after the

federal reserve announced another increase to u.s. interest rates. that's a lie from the american enterprise institute a3 p.m. eastern. with the mterm elections less than a week away, charlie cook of the cook political report and other politil analysts get together to talk about potential outcomes and issues most important to voters. that's live at 5 p.m. eastern. at 7 p.m. khmer campaign 22 t tw -- 2022 coverage -- our campaign02coverage continues which is also streaming on the c-span out video at or online at www.c-span.org. >> election day, starting at 8 p.m. eastern come watch c-span's life election night coverage and see which party will control congress. get the results as they happen from the house, senate and governor races from around the country. see victory and concession speeches from the candidates on